Earlier quoted context omitted.
Witting tickets is revenue positive, “they don’t have the money” doesn’t make any sense
You’d think so but apparently that’s not the case
Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
411–420 of 456 posts
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
Riga. Of course, all of the cyclist absolutely LOVE it, and now want to remove cobblestones, which could lead to a removal of the city from the UNESCO World Heritage list. But they don't care. You can see a picture of the genius arrangement here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HGpgA1pXEAEuFLn?format=jpg&name=...
Based on the photo, it looks like it’s pretty easily rectified by emergency bollards that can be lifted / lowered by emergency crews, though those may be expensive to procure.
Yes, but why wait and do the things the right way when you can just block a street with concrete and call it a "modal filter"?
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is well known that by stopping, the cyclist will burn and be consumed in flammes in mere seconds.
Cyclists, other than motorists (1) build that momentum up with their legmuscles and (2) speed is required for stability on two-wheeled vehicles, meaning stopping with a bicycle is more exhausting and annoying than, say with a car. I am not saying stopping isn't the right option in many situations, what I am saying is that a good bicycle infrastructure is planned in a way that understands that a person on a bicycle ha…
Yes, cycling is a sport. Should we also flatten hills as they have the inconvenience of requiring to push harder on pedals?
If the physical aspect of cycling (involving stopping for taxis, pregnant women, children, or distracted pedestrian plebs) is too hard, solutions exist: public transports, walking, or electric bikes (whose riders seem equally annoyed to slow down, for some reason).
The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.
Space is also not infinite in cities, so you can't change the infra without sacrificing other users, be they pedestrians, delivery vehicles, or car users.
Last, cycling is mostly for a specific type of people, who are alone, fit and with a small cargo. It excludes older and younger ones, disabled plebs, and families. Those people are better served with quality public transport - which could be improved with the money used to make costly bicycle road arrangements. Public transport is also always convenient, not just when it's sunny. I live in a city with temperatures under 0 celsius for 4 months of the year, including some days at -20. I'm glad I can use my car in winter to take my children to school. Apparently, other cyclists seem to think the same since no one uses a bike in winter (the new urban equestrian class seems a bit shy when it's cold?).
Helsinki is a city I like, because while there are mostly non-invasive bike lanes on large arteries, it's easy to go around by car and by walk. The secret is that the public transport system is top-notch, so a pregnant woman can use it to go to the maternity ward - something that you can't do by cycling (but who is stupid enough to have kids nowadays in city centers, right?).
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure it went something like “so where are we allowed to pickup and drop off riders” and the city couldn’t answer. The problem isn’t really enforcement, the problem is that there are simply no alternatives, and the city shies away from enforcement because they know that. If they started enforcing the rules strictly, people would again ask questions that they aren’t prepared to answer. If you compare that to…
Blocking the right car lane for a drop off is perfectly legal outside of No Stopping zones. This is how taxis have always worked. It's just that other drivers get pissed off if you block a car lane when there's a bike lane next to it. That needs to be trained away by enforcing the rules.
> Blocking the right car lane for a drop off is perfectly legal outside of No Stopping zones.
In which municipality? In most cities and states in the US, it is illegal to obstruct a roadway. Taxis may get some carve-outs for loading and unloading disabled people, but usually, even taxis are supposed to pull over before stopping for a passenger.
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's the human driver vs the Waymo. I'm not going to entertain fantasies where all the cars magically disappear from the road; there's no political will for that and no politician is dumb enough to try. To be perfectly clear, the difference between an empty road and a Waymo is mostly academic if you're on a bike. The Waymo is just that good at respecting space.
I’m not talking about cars magically disappear from the road, I’m specifically talking about taxis and rideshares versus using another way to get around, which even includes personal car ownership. Studies have shown repeatedly that rideshares lower transit usage and don’t reduce personal car ownership.
Improving transit and allowing Google to blow $100B on making cars drive themselves are not mutually exclusive.
In the US, in particular, last mile transportation is mostly done by car. Transit cannot economically serve low-density suburbs.
In a city? It depends on price versus convenience. As more and more cars drive themselves, the city can get away with taking back more and more space for transit and cyclists. People should choose mass transit because it's convenient, not because there's no way to call a car.
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
We live in the real would and have to work with what actually exists. I'd love it if my city had Tokyo's rail system, but it doesn't, and won't.
We actually don’t have to work with what exists. We actively chose and continue to choose what exists. Every day new land is developed that perpetuates these choices. Every day we decide to keep things the same or implement change. Here’s a nice video about how rural towns can be configured to not be car dependent: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg You’ll notice that this isn’t some ancient European pre-automob…
> We actually don’t have to work with what exists.
Sure we do, by definition.
We can work to change things, sure. But for many places in the US (especially established cities) this is a monumental effort. For example, I live in San Francisco. I wish we had more subways. Our bus system isn't bad, and they've converted/added many bus-only lanes over the past several years, but buses are still at the mercy of traffic (as well as traffic lights). Our light rail has large above-ground portions, some of which has to deal with traffic, some not (but all have to deal with stop signs and traffic lights).
I live a block away from 3rd Street, where the T line runs up and down the eastern side of the city. However, nearly all of it is above-ground. There's an express bus that runs between where I live and Market street, similar to the T's path. The bus is usually significantly faster than the train. If the train was entirely underground, I'd expect it to be as fast as the express bus (at the very least, it would be more consistent than the bus).
How would I, personally, go about changing this? You say "we" actively choose, but what is "we"? I don't have control or even influence over the collective consciousness. I feel entirely powerless to change the status quo. Even if I could get the ball rolling on this, it would likely be 15+ years before the project is completed. Will I even be living here then? I'm not sure.
From your comment, it sounds like your suggestion might be to move to a small town, and work to change things there, where it might be easier for individuals to make a difference. While that's not completely unreasonable... I don't want to live in a small town in a rural area. I grew up in suburbs and semi-rural areas, and while I had a perfectly fine childhood, I much prefer an urban environment. Yes, I'm restricting my options this way, and perhaps missing opportunities to live in a place where I can change things. But I have a finite amount of time left in my life, and I need to be selective in how I spend it.
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to agree with that (as a pedestrian and driver only), but as I've started cycling, I've begun to realize that many rules of the road, intended for cars, just don't make much sense for bicycles.
Like what? I hear people claim that not stopping at STOP sign is somehow making it safer than stopping but when asked about the mechanism of the safety in such a maneuver they either disappear or proclaim that Idaho where this is allowed is in top half of safest states for cyclists so it must work somehow. I cycle myself and see no rules that somehow don't make sense for bikes. In fact, since bikes are much less mane…
I didn't say anything about safety; I said "don't make much sense".
Fully stopping at a stop sign just isn't necessary for bicycles. And forcing bicycles to stop can create inefficient or even unsafe situations. It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. On top of that, cars lining up behind bicycles at a stop sign can get impatient and try to go around the cyclist (I've seen this happen); this actually is a safety issue.
(Now, I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights without even slowing down. I'm not saying that's ok.)
> In fact, since bikes are much less maneuverable and much more vulnerable, they need to obey all the rules that are there to protect the cars from other cars with more vigilance than cars.
I don't think this statement is obviously true. Cars and bicycles are very different types of vehicles, and there's no reason to believe that every car-related safety rule has the same safety-related effect when applied to a bicycle.
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in California so YMMV depending on the laws where you live and the temperament of drivers. If I do a "proper" stop at a stop sign (0mph, place foot on ground, fortunately I don't clip in), cars will see me stopping and try to blast thru the stop sign when it isn't their turn. So I end up stopping while the first car goes thru the intersection, and while I'm getting resituated on the pedals a second car enters…
You described cars violating rules, but what is your remedy for that, not to stop? How is it going to help with the cars blowing their stops?
Yes, it absolutely helps, because when the cyclist doesn't stop, the driver doesn't get as impatient, and won't try to get around and blow by the cyclist.
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bike lanes on a curb are significantly more dangerous due to turning car drivers often not seeing them (due to parked cars in the way) or interpreting them as “just a sidewalk” and not properly looking for cyclists.
Not a real problem, as proven by many countries where cycling is encouraged and supported
It definitely is a real problem, although I cannot say with certainty whether it's a significant enough problem to make curbside lanes worse than roadway lanes.
Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what? I hear people claim that not stopping at STOP sign is somehow making it safer than stopping but when asked about the mechanism of the safety in such a maneuver they either disappear or proclaim that Idaho where this is allowed is in top half of safest states for cyclists so it must work somehow. I cycle myself and see no rules that somehow don't make sense for bikes. In fact, since bikes are much less mane…
I didn't say anything about safety; I said "don't make much sense". Fully stopping at a stop sign just isn't necessary for bicycles. And forcing bicycles to stop can create inefficient or even unsafe situations. It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign. On top of that, cars lining up behind bicycl…
No road rule is necessary for anyone, all of them are for safety only.
>It takes a bit longer for a bicycle to stop and start again than for a car, and requiring cyclists to fully stop will absolutely destroy throughput at a stop sign.
Having cyclist colliding with each other or other cars in the intersection will improve throughput? Do you ride a bike or drive at all? Stop signs are not just some Big Government ploy to annoy you. Stop signs allow two traffic streams to cross each other without collisions. Without stop sings and people stopping at them you would get cars colliding all the time.